Cethin

Just a couple of questions. You aren’t an expert in the field of constitutional law, correct? If not, do you presume you know more than experts do? If so, do you agree that not all your peers through history agree with your stance?

I’m not stating one opinion or the other. I’m not an expert, nor have I claimed to be. I’m pointing out that you keep implying there’s no way someone can disagree. However, it has been a topic of disagreement of experts for literally hundreds of years. If it was clear this wouldn’t be the case. You seem to imply that they’re wrong for this. If you want to know the reasons, look for their arguments, not random Lemmy users. Again, Judicial Review is the term to search for. There’s hundreds of years of debate for you to catch up on.

The other person commenting linked this, which you subsequently ignored and asked for more evidence (sea-lioning). If you cared to actually engage, maybe I would. Instead you’re ignoring what others say because you only want to read what you have to say.

Edit: I want to add, there’s plenty of scholars who hold the same opinion as you, and I potentially do too. However, I recognize that many people more knowledgeable on the subject than myself do not agree with that stance. If this is true then it’s clearly not particularly clearly defined.

If it was straightforward there wouldn’t be several hundred years of debate over it. I’m glad you’re so intelligent that you can see past all the issues others have noticed, but no one else is that lucky. My advice for you is to get a degree in constitutional law (it should be easy for you) and solve this issue once and for all for all of us. It’d save us a lot of time.

The whole intro part didn’t add anything anyway, so it just made the viewing experience worse for no reason. That was frustrating. Still, every debate should be like that one.

Stop sea-lioning. You don’t get to just ignore what someone provides you and ask for more proof. Fuck off.

It wouldn’t. They gained that power by saying they have it, but it isn’t specifically granted. We just continue to assume they’re correct, and that they’re the ones who get to decide if they’re correct, but we don’t have to.

Judicial Review is the term to look for if you want to learn more.

I believe this would be a state issue though, so some of that doesn’t apply.

If anyone wants to actually read this: https://web.archive.org/web/20240924204019/https://theintercept.com/2024/09/24/cnn-rashida-tlaib-dana-nessel-antisemitism/

TLDR: She implied the AG’s opinion to go after Palestinian protesters and not other protesters indicated a bias, which it certainly seems that way. The AG then says that calling this out is anti-semetic, as they always do. They can’t defend their actions, so they instead call into question the integrity of the other party.

She only recommended her! Everything she does after she doesn’t get credit for, right! /s

You can’t stay consistent, can you? “Biden bad” is the only difference between Warren getting credit for recommending her and Biden getting credit for choosing that recommendation because it was the best choice for what he wanted to accomplish.

Your English is bad or you type poorly. I assume you meant that the comment implied every artifact was stolen, which it never did. The stolen artifacts are stolen, and make up most of the largest exhibit.

It could be part of good writing. It absolutely isn’t required. We don’t get the background on most characters. Why should they have to give detail they wouldn’t provide for other characters just to satisfy you?

I’d argue that magic does have grounding in our world. Sure, we understand today (at leady most of us) that it isn’t real. For most of our history people have believed magic was real though, and attributed real events to magic. We have the word because it has a long history of people thinking it exists. If a story wanted to use “magic” to explain events, that’d be pretty realistic to the times it’s taking place in.

Except there actually were people of different cultures/ethnicities/nationalities in other places in the past, often without anyone caring that much. Sure, it was often notable but it wasn’t always exclusionary. Implying this shouldn’t be done is the real historical fiction.

OK, I’m don’t arguing with you. If your job is to select people who do a particular job well, and then they do that job well, then your job was done well also. If you somehow don’t agree then I don’t know what’s wrong with you.

The president doesn’t do much of anything themselves ever. Their job is to pick people who will handle their jobs well. A good leader is one who is capable of picking good advisors. In what way does he not deserve credit? Sure, she does also. It doesn’t take anything away from her. You just literally cannot admit that you appreciate something Biden has done for some reason.

I didn’t say for not being Trump. I said he deserves credit for what his administration has chosen to do. Regardless of who’s idea it is, his administration chose to listen to them, if it wasn’t from them. They deserve credit for that.

You aren’t even setting the bar too high. You’re not even setting it, and then saying they came in short. You’re saying they don’t deserve credit for something they literally did. How dumb is that?

Doesn’t he, and his administration, deserve credit, even if it’s just for listening to other people? If it were a particular other president it wouldn’t happen, so his administration deserves to be praised for it. Criticize where it needs to be done, but also praise where it’s deserved. If you only criticize then you’re unable to be won and aren’t worth trying to win.

Isn’t she a fucking mermaid who comes from the ocean? Why should she be any real nationality/ethnicity?

It’d be as bad as having people of color play Hamilton and associates!

That’s the justification, and maybe the catalyst, but prices have stayed higher than they were due to price gouging. It’s not Biden/Harris fault, but rather capitalism. They saw they could still make more profit while selling less at a higher price, so they kept doing so.